Precepts study of Genesis 1

[TankGirl]

Hello all

I posted here a few months ago when I started looking into Creation, and found lots of interesting answers. Well, I've recently started a 6 week Precept study of Genesis 1. I am really loving this extremely in-depth study, and learning a huge amount.

I haven't had as much time as I would like to devote to it, but am looking forward to catching up & probably lurking here some more as well!

Has anyone else done this study, or anything similar?

 

[busterdog]

Tell me what a precept study is first.

(Maybe that means no.)

 

[TankGirl]

Tell me what a precept study is first.

(Maybe that means no.)

I'm guessing it would be!

It's a kind of Bible study, based on looking REALLY closely at the words of Scripture, checking out the Hebrew & cross-referencing scripture with scripture to discern meaning. Pretty cool actually. I'm a bit weird about it cos there's a group at my church who are SO obsessed, like this is the ONLY way to study the word (I'm a second class citizen cos I don't have an NASB ), but they were doing a Genesis one, & I've got this fascination with science & creation, so here I am! I'm enjoying it loads, actualy, and it fits SO well with the views that I picked up when I first started looking at this.

As the teacher said this morning - does it matter what we believe about Creation? Well, yes, it does! If death existed before the Fall, what does that say about the redemption plan? If Jesus quoted Gen 1, and treated it as fact, what does it say if we make it out to be a pretty bit of poetry with only allegorical truth?

Can you tell i'm ejoying all this learning?

Here's a link for you... www.precept.org (the one I'm doing is a Precept upon Precept - very indepth, and we watch a brilliant video with Kurt Wise each week too)

 

[TankGirl]

In case you were wondering, this is my only other posting in this forum, from 6 months ago! Eek! http://foru.ms/t4868907-initial-impressionsa-few-random-thoughts.html

 

[busterdog]

I'm guessing it would be!

It's a kind of Bible study, based on looking REALLY closely at the words of Scripture, checking out the Hebrew & cross-referencing scripture with scripture to discern meaning. Pretty cool actually. I'm a bit weird about it cos there's a group at my church who are SO obsessed, like this is the ONLY way to study the word (I'm a second class citizen cos I don't have an NASB ), but they were doing a Genesis one, & I've got this fascination with science & creation, so here I am! I'm enjoying it loads, actualy, and it fits SO well with the views that I picked up when I first started looking at this.

As the teacher said this morning - does it matter what we believe about Creation? Well, yes, it does! If death existed before the Fall, what does that say about the redemption plan? If Jesus quoted Gen 1, and treated it as fact, what does it say if we make it out to be a pretty bit of poetry with only allegorical truth?

Can you tell i'm ejoying all this learning?

Here's a link for you... www.precept.org (the one I'm doing is a Precept upon Precept - very indepth, and we watch a brilliant video with Kurt Wise each week too)

You are right about death and its place in our world. It is a huge, but lightly regarded in so much of the Church. As for how Jesus viewed the Genesis, He certainly didn't give any lectures on deconstruction in literary criticism.

Sounds interesting. As far as being fanatical about this method, it sounds like a good method. Sometimes you just get surprised by being lead to something, despite the effort to be scholarly. As they say, sometimes it is better to be lucky than be good.

Cross referencing is not just sound, its wierd. The very idea of opening up scripture by cross-referencing gets spooky. I know all about looking at culture and idioms to understand a text. But the cross references are more like buried treasure. If folks want to say that this is just nice literature by fallible people, I guess that's their business. The cross references show that we are talking about an entirely different order of magnitude in putting this book together.

Looks like you may have to take the lead on this. I would be interested in what they are teaching on some of these words:

without form and void

the deep

face of the waters

Jer 4:20
Destruction upon destruction is cried; for the whole land is spoiled: suddenly are my tents spoiled, [and] my curtains in a moment.



Jer 4:23¶I beheld the earth, and, lo, [it was] without form, and void; and the heavens, and they [had] no light.
Job 38:16 Hast thou entered 0935 into the springs 05033 of the sea 03220? or hast thou walked 01980 in the search 02714 of the depth 08415?

Psa 71:20 [Thou], which hast shewed 07200 me great 07227 and sore 07451 troubles 06869, shalt quicken 02421 me again 07725 , and shalt bring me up 05927 again 07725 from the depths 08415 of the earth 0776.

Seems to me "abyss" is better than "ocean" in understanding the deep, meaning the latter use is better than the former.

Eze 43:2 And, behold, the glory 03519 of the God 0430 of Israel 03478 came 0935 from the way 01870 of the east 06921: and his voice 06963 [was] like a noise 06963 of many 07227 waters 04325: and the earth 0776 shined 0215 with his glory 03519.

Eze 47:9 And it shall come to pass, [that] every thing 05315 that liveth 02416, which moveth 08317 , whithersoever the rivers 05158 shall come 0935 , shall live 02421 : and there shall be a very 03966 great 07227 multitude of fish 01710, because these waters 04325 shall come 0935 thither: for they shall be healed 07495 ; and every thing shall live 02425 whither the river 05158 cometh 0935 .

 

[TankGirl]

Well, without referring back to my notes, I'll give you a bit from memory...

[BIBLE]Genesis 1:1[/BIBLE]

God created the heavens & the earth, but in verse 2, they are formless & void. We conclude from this that He probably caused to come into being all the raw materials which were required to form creation (I'm paraphrasing here, please bear with me!), but hadn't yet ordered them into any shape or form.

Looking at the Hebrew words for formless & void, we see various meanings, including empty, without form, chaotic etc (doing this from memory!) By eliminating such words which can't apply, such as choatic (God is a God of order, not chaos - He was never not in control), we can determine that the words mean "without form" & "empty".

We then looked at a scientific essay which stated that all matter has form only when forces are applied to it, and without forces, even light has no form. So we take this to mean that there were not yet any forces in this brand new universe. Without form is an impossible thing to comprehend, but the closest we can get is to view everything in the universe as like a liquid, like water.

The word associated with hovering or moving over the waters (Spirit of God), has connatations of an eagle or a hen brooding over her chicks. It is a word which implies action, movement, energy, or vibration. Vibration is a force, and it is possible that it was this action by the Spirit of God which introduced forces & energy to the new universe, and hence allowed matter to take form, including light (which is, of course the very next thing mentioned).

I'm not sure what you mean by the deep, but we looked at the waters, and how God separated them and placed the expanse of heaven (or sky) between the waters below & the waters above. The waters below clearly mean the oceans on the earth, since He goes on to control & name them as such. The waters above are the subject of debate, but since we can see that He placed the sun, moon & stars in the expanse, this expanse can only be what we call space. Therefore, these waters above must be beyond the limit of what we regard as the universe.

(This is pure speculation on my part, and not something discussed as yet on the course, but if God formed all life on earth out of these "formless" waters below, and we know from Rev that He will fashion a new Heaven & a new Earth, maybe these waters above are what He has reserved in order to make things new? Just a thought.)

We also looked at how the word used to describe the creation of the expanse, is the same word used for beating out a sheet of metal. In fact that is the meaning EVERY other time the word (raqia, iirc) is used in Scripture. When you then look at just how many times it is stated that God "stretched out the heavens" (I spent just 10 minutes looking a few refs up, and came up with 6 separate verses saying this exact thing), and we get a picture of God forming something 2 dimensional, and then stretching it out to form the expanse of space. (Another bit of speculation by me, but I can see how that would cause the effect we see of the universe expanding (or having been expanded). I can also see that if He put the stars in place, and then stretched the Heavens out, that the light we see from stars that are now "billions of light years away", actually started very close to us, and would not have taken all that time to reach us after all. But who knows, that's me speculating, but maybe we'll cover that later...)

What I'm really loving about the course, is how much we can learn of the nature of God by studying these "apparantly" simple verses. How all the words used imply a loving, involved nature; how He has supreme authority over ALL creation - controlling it, forming it, distinguishing one element from another, naming & blessing His works. I have just been doing a lot of cross referencing, and it's staggering to see just how many times God is referred to as the Creator of the heavens & the earth, the Creator of all things, the One who placed the stars in the heavens & named every one...You get the picture. It's so often the first thing the writer mentions about Him, and the most awe-filled way of giving Him praise & glory. The verses then go on to mention how He is our great deliverer, or strength, or comfort...Take away the Creator bit, then what does that say about where our help comes from?

The teacher said yesterday that the most important thing to come from the study, is to know more of God, and to fall in love with Him, and I'm certainly experiencing that! I feel like my eyes are opening again - and it's all so obvious! How come everyone doesn't get it? (I know the answer to that question, it's rhetorical )

Hope that helps - sorry it's longer than I thought it would be! It's just all so fascinating, and I thought you'd appreciate it!

 

[flaja]

Someone might become a Darwinist if they become convinced that the Bible is false. But no one is going to become a Christian because they believe Darwinism is false. If someone is a Christian, it won’t matter what the so-called scientific evidence says about Darwinism because Christianity is as strong a faith system as Darwinism is.

But, what you believe about Creationism does affect what you believe about life, death, sin and the nature of God. To be a Christian you must 1. Reject Darwinism (including any form of theistic evolution), 2. Accept the correct form of Creationism (even if you don’t fully understand it; and most people that don’t have a science background likely don’t) and 3. Have a correct understanding of God (because if you don’t you may promote a misunderstanding of God and thereby promote a false god).

I became a Christian when I was about 4 years old, but I was not raised in a Christian home and I have never been a member of any church, nor have I ever been a church-goer because I have no respect for organized churches due to their self-serving nature. It hasn’t been until the past few years that I have managed to get a good handle on what my personal beliefs are and about a year ago I started preparing a written outline of my beliefs. I think it is a good idea for Christians to do this because it helps when you need to explain something to non-Christians and it also helps you maintain doctrinal consistency.

Writing your beliefs down helps you determine when one belief contradicts another so you can study some more and resolve the conflict.

 

[Tinker Grey]

flaja,

Do you believe in Grace? What does the concept mean to you?

Thanks.

 

[busterdog]

Someone might become a Darwinist if they become convinced that the Bible is false. But no one is going to become a Christian because they believe Darwinism is false. If someone is a Christian, it won’t matter what the so-called scientific evidence says about Darwinism because Christianity is as strong a faith system as Darwinism is.

But, what you believe about Creationism does affect what you believe about life, death, sin and the nature of God. To be a Christian you must 1. Reject Darwinism (including any form of theistic evolution), 2. Accept the correct form of Creationism (even if you don’t fully understand it; and most people that don’t have a science background likely don’t) and 3. Have a correct understanding of God (because if you don’t you may promote a misunderstanding of God and thereby promote a false god).

I became a Christian when I was about 4 years old, but I was not raised in a Christian home and I have never been a member of any church, nor have I ever been a church-goer because I have no respect for organized churches due to their self-serving nature. It hasn’t been until the past few years that I have managed to get a good handle on what my personal beliefs are and about a year ago I started preparing a written outline of my beliefs. I think it is a good idea for Christians to do this because it helps when you need to explain something to non-Christians and it also helps you maintain doctrinal consistency.

Writing your beliefs down helps you determine when one belief contradicts another so you can study some more and resolve the conflict.

Not sure if you meant to make creationism a salvation issue, but it kind of sounds like that.

I don't think we should go that far. Guessing that is where Tinker is going. I was kind of surprised, since I was hearing grace in many of your posts.

Darwinism as a means to salvation is certainly something that must be rejected. That is, making one more acceptable or worthy before God by genetic improvement or survival of the fittest is abhorrent. I tried to read in to a post to make it work and show grace. Hope that does it.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I don't think we should go that far. Guessing that is where Tinker is going. I was kind of surprised, since I was hearing grace in many of your posts.

Yes. That's where I was going. I'd agree that the tone of flaja's posts have been gentle. But, I thought the question of creation as a salvation issue shouldn't be left unaddressed.

I agree with your statement regarding Darwinism and improving toward salvation. But, I wonder why you bring it up. I've never met a TE that thought that.

 

[shernren]

I wonder if your precept study will eventually cross-reference Genesis 1 with Job 38 and 39. Especially 39. That would be interesting.

I wholeheartedly agree that cross-referencing Scripture is a powerful way to study it - because many cross-references in Scripture were willfully inserted by the authors of Scripture, often with explicit commentary on why they were there and what they were doing there. Those, of course, should be accorded greater weight in study. However, in any study that so closely intersects with the theology of creation, we must be very careful to read truth out of Scripture, rather than to read science into it. I wish you all the best on your study! =)

 

[flaja]

flaja,

Do you believe in Grace? What does the concept mean to you?

Thanks.

I haven’t yet addressed the specific issue of grace because I am not certain that I fully understand the concept yet. As near as I can tell grace is simply God's forgiveness for sin since we are no longer obligated to pay the penalty for sin. I can give you what I have already concluded regarding sin, Christ and salvation:

Sin
01. The concept of inherited sin has little support in the Bible and most doctrine pertaining to inherited sin is likely mankind’s invention. A just God cannot convict a newborn child of sin when that child has had no conscious opportunity to sin. But the inevitability of that child’s death and the fact that death is punishment for sin cannot be avoided or dismissed. An infant’s death may be a general punishment for the human race rather than anything the infant had done personally.

02. Every human has inherited the penalty for sin that fell on Adam and Eve, but the reasons why have likely not been fully revealed to man and remain an inexplicable mystery of God.

03. Every human, when given the opportunity to act on his own free will, will sin and has sinned.

04. Physical death and spiritual death are the penalties for sin.

05. Humans are the only living things on earth that are capable of sinning because they are the only living things with the conscious will that allows them to follow God or follow Satan. But, every living thing on earth is subject to physical death. Animal sacrifices provide no atonement for sin because animals have no conscious ability to sin and therefore cannot be guilty of sin and thus cannot be worthy of death, but they do have symbolic value in that they emphasize the seriousness of sin and its penalties.

Christ
01. He is the only begotten Son of the Lord God of Israel.

02. He is co-equal and co-eternal with God the Father and God the Holy Ghost.

03. He was conceived by the Holy Ghost and born of a virgin and is thus fully man and fully God.

04. As a man Christ had the capability to sin; As God He is free of all sin of His own doing.

05. He was crucified unto death only to be physically resurrected after three days.

06. Through His death on the cross, Christ paid the penalty of a sinner when He was in no way guilty of sin, and through this sacrifice He paid the penalty of every sinner that chooses to accept this atonement, which He offers freely to all.

07. Christ freely offers salvation to all people. No one is condemned for sin as a matter of course; a person is condemned for sin only as long as they willfully choose to sin.

Baptism
01. Baptism is merely a symbolic act; it has no other significance.

02. As a physical act baptism, like all other physical acts on man’s part, plays no role in salvation since we are saved by faith in Christ alone and not by any works on any human’s part.

03. Baptism is unnecessary for salvation.

04. Faith in Christ and only faith in Christ makes one a Christian; the most baptism can do is make one a member of a church congregation, i.e., a church can require baptism as a sign of a would-be congregant’s commitment to Christ- although baptism is no guarantee of a commitment to Christ.

A while back I was on another board and someone brought up the issue of legalism. I am legalistic on issues like women pastors because the Bible is clear on these issues. I am not legalistic on issues like music and dancing (although I have strong personal preferences). I suggested that the opposite of legalism cannot be license, that is you cannot be so afraid of being legalistic that you are too afraid to say certain beliefs and behaviors are ungodly. Someone replied that the opposite of legalism is grace. This lead to a discussion regarding who is entitled to grace and how much grace any given individual is entitled to. My position is that grace is freely offered to all, but you must ask for it through repentance. You cannot commit repeated acts of sin and expect God to give you repeated allotments of grace because you will eventually reach a point where you are demanding grace and this will bring God to a point where He will have to doubt the sincerity of your repentance and your eligibility for grace.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I agree with some of what you said ... and I disagree with some of what you said. If you want, I could go into it just for discussion purposes ... but, it's off the point I wanted to make about grace.

You might find a study on grace most rewarding. Supplementary reading sometimes drives it home. You might try Philip Yancey's What's So Amazing About Grace. Brennan Manning's Ragamuffin Gospel.

Without belaboring the point, the most commonly quoted scripture on this point is Eph 2:8-9 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast." This is largely taken to mean that there is nothing we can do to earn salvation. All we can do is accept the gift. And, yes, it is commonly taught to include repentence. (Those of the Calvinist persuasion would say that we cannot do even that.)

As such, salvation isn't grace plus anything. It is just God's grace. God's unmerrited favor. We can't earn it. In the context of this discussion ... salvation is NOT grace plus right theology. If it were, how right would we have to be? How well do we have to understand the Chalcedonian formulation of Christ, the God-man? Do you get homoousious? Do you have to get the trinity right? (Read the discussions on this board. Even those who understand it best and defend it most vigorously can't describe it without lapsing into heresy -- by their own admissions.)

You might say that we need to understand God. How well? How well must we comprehend the infinite? It's impossible. To hold too tightly to rightness is to damn us all to hell -- yourself included. God's grace covers our failure. Jesus' sacrifice grants us clean garments.

This is why you'll find that even among many of your YEC colleagues that CvE is not considered a salvation issue. It is dangerous theology for any of us to hold our pet beliefs to be a salvation issue.

HTH

 

[gluadys]

A while back I was on another board and someone brought up the issue of legalism. [snip] Someone replied that the opposite of legalism is grace. This lead to a discussion regarding who is entitled to grace and how much grace any given individual is entitled to. My position is that grace is freely offered to all, but you must ask for it through repentance. You cannot commit repeated acts of sin and expect God to give you repeated allotments of grace because you will eventually reach a point where you are demanding grace and this will bring God to a point where He will have to doubt the sincerity of your repentance and your eligibility for grace. [/FONT]

As I understand grace, that whole conversation was based on a misconception on both sides. The question of who is eligible for grace is moot because no one is ever eligible for grace. Grace would not be grace if there were eligibility requirements.

You are right, however, in saying grace cannot be demanded. Grace is given by God's free and sovereign decision. By the same token, no one can make themselves ineligible for grace since there is no way to become eligible for grace in the first place.

This is a guard against both pride and despair. If there were eligibility requirements, people would make an effort to meet them, and that way lies the pridefulness of legalism that says "I have earned this grace. I have a right to it."

On the other hand, if a person sins a 100 times over and God chooses to forgive 100 times over, that is God's choice. One cannot expect it or demand it, but one cannot ever say that God's readiness to forgive is exhausted either. So the sinner always has grounds for hope in God's mercy. Nothing can put one beyond the reach of God's grace.

Grace is rooted solely in God's sovereignty and not in anything we do or fail to do. So we have neither grounds for pride nor grounds for despair. But we always have grounds for hope.

 

[flaja]

As such, salvation isn't grace plus anything. It is just God's grace. God's unmerrited favor. We can't earn it. In the context of this discussion ... salvation is NOT grace plus right theology. If it were, how right would we have to be? How well do we have to understand the Chalcedonian formulation of Christ, the God-man? Do you get homoousious? Do you have to get the trinity right? (Read the discussions on this board. Even those who understand it best and defend it most vigorously can't describe it without lapsing into heresy -- by their own admissions.)

You might say that we need to understand God. How well? How well must we comprehend the infinite? It's impossible. To hold too tightly to rightness is to damn us all to hell -- yourself included. God's grace covers our failure. Jesus' sacrifice grants us clean garments.

How can you tell someone that they are not right with God if you aren’t willing to claim beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are right with God yourself? How can you say “I am saved by Christ, but I am not sure that He is God?” If you are not certain what you believe how can you say God will take care of you anyway? If you sit around and wait for God to fill in the gaps, what makes you certain that Satan won’t fill in the gaps first?

 

[flaja]

As I understand grace, that whole conversation was based on a misconception on both sides. The question of who is eligible for grace is moot because no one is ever eligible for grace. Grace would not be grace if there were eligibility requirements.

You are right, however, in saying grace cannot be demanded. Grace is given by God's free and sovereign decision. By the same token, no one can make themselves ineligible for grace since there is no way to become eligible for grace in the first place.

This is a guard against both pride and despair. If there were eligibility requirements, people would make an effort to meet them, and that way lies the pridefulness of legalism that says "I have earned this grace. I have a right to it."

On the other hand, if a person sins a 100 times over and God chooses to forgive 100 times over, that is God's choice. One cannot expect it or demand it, but one cannot ever say that God's readiness to forgive is exhausted either. So the sinner always has grounds for hope in God's mercy. Nothing can put one beyond the reach of God's grace.

Grace is rooted solely in God's sovereignty and not in anything we do or fail to do. So we have neither grounds for pride nor grounds for despair. But we always have grounds for hope.

I say eligible for grace as in whom grace is offered to. Calvinists believe grace is offered only to a pre-determined few. I believe grace is offered to all, but not all will accept it.

If you continue to sin after you claim salvation through Christ, how often can you sin without making your claim to salvation a lie- meaning you were not really saved?

 

[Tinker Grey]

How can you tell someone that they are not right with God if you aren’t willing to claim beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are right with God yourself?

Beyond a shadow of a doubt? You're kidding right? You never wake up with doubts? Doubt is not the opposite of faith.

Are you married? If so, are you always sure of your relationship with your spouse? Don't you sometimes suppose that something is wrong? Then you cajole and wheedle for more informaton. Then you discover that the only thing wrong is the fact that you've cajoled and wheedled a molehill into a mountaint -- there never was anything wrong. You were wrong.

Life is full of uncertainty. Embrace the mystery.

Second, I never tell anyone they are not right with God. How would I know? I might address behavior if I've developed a relationship and earned the right to. Consider this: we are all different. Each of us has a different path of sanctification. (I like to say that if there are 6 billion people in the world, then there are 6 billion ways God deals with them.) Let's suppose that I have a list of 20 things God wants me to work on. Let's suppose that you have 20 things. Suppose they are the same 20 items. In such a case, I would be very surprised that those 20 items are in the same order.

How would I know that you are not right with God? Because you're not working on the same things I am, or are still struggling (or not even yet focused) on the things that I've conquered (thru Christ)? Perhaps you are exactly where God wants you at this point in life. Then my function in addressing behavior -- again, supposing I've earned the right -- might merely be to point you to an upcoming item on your list. And you might do the same for me.

And so, I say again, I wouldn't presume to know the heart. Only God knows the heart.

How can you say “I am saved by Christ, but I am not sure that He is God?”

I didn't discuss whether he was God. I asked how well you (or anyone) can understand how the God/Man thing works. It is a fundamental tenet of Christianity ... yet few would dare to claim to understand it.

If you are not certain what you believe how can you say God will take care of you anyway? If you sit around and wait for God to fill in the gaps, what makes you certain that Satan won’t fill in the gaps first?

Certainty and trust are not synonymous. That is why it is faith. I trust God in midst of uncertainty. And I trust that as a child of God that God will fill in the gaps as necessary in a timely fashion -- and God's timings is perfect. There is no need to fear anyone "filling in the gaps first."

Salvation is a trust issue, not an information issue.

 

[shernren]

How can you tell someone that they are not right with God if you aren’t willing to claim beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are right with God yourself? How can you say “I am saved by Christ, but I am not sure that He is God?” If you are not certain what you believe how can you say God will take care of you anyway? If you sit around and wait for God to fill in the gaps, what makes you certain that Satan won’t fill in the gaps first?

As a toddler, every once in a while when my parents wanted me to somewhere, they'd bundle me into a large metal box - and before I knew it, I'd be where they wanted me to be.

Eventually I learned that the big metal box was called a "car".

As I grew a little older, I observed that Daddy always sat in the front, and he was always holding this funny round thing that he would turn to and fro. As soon as I noticed that I also learned that how he turned the round thing determined how the round thing moved.

The more I learned, the more I named. I found out about "wheel" and "petrol" and "radio" - and "speed trap".

I learned that you don't get to drive a car until you're 18 (in Malaysia). When I did turn 18, it was a whole new world of information for me. I learned about gears and clutch and brake and accelerator, and also about the metaphysics of driving - of rules and lights and intersections and, most importantly, other drivers!

When I grow older and earn more money I will probably own a car myself. Then I'll know even more about cars - about washing a car, and getting tax registrations renewed, about regular refueling and rules about who gets to sit in the window seats.

But I'll need to send my car in for regular checkups, and when I do so, I'll be trusting someone who knows even more about cars than I do. The mechanic knows about suspension, chassis, and many other things I can't imagine. But even he doesn't know everything. For it takes a chemist to explain why burning fuel produces energy, and a physicist to explain why they move the way they do. And who knows where the metal for cars come from, or how the materials are transported from mine to factory to outlet? Who knows how to design roads and intersections, or decide rules and laws, or punish those who break them? Certainly not me.

And yet, as long as I have a good map and know where I'm going, the car never fails to get me there (barring, of course, accidents and similar mishaps). Whether I am a toddler or a traffic designer, it doesn't fail me. Its efficacy is not based on my knowledge.

... Now eternity with God is my destination, the Bible is my map, Jesus is the Way, and the Holy Spirit is my guide and instructor. What more could I need? I think I know a bit about God and His plans, but I'm even more certain that what I don't know dwarfs what I do. But why would that stop God from making me right with Him? After all, it is He who makes me right.

A car is made from fallible human designs by fallible human hands. It cannot think and it runs on chemicals and flawed human rules. And yet it does not begrudge me my ignorance, as long as I follow instructions. How much more, then, will God make up for our ignorance and faithlessness if He loves us so much? He has already given His Son for us, while we were yet enemies; will He withhold anything simply because we lack knowledge?

 

[flaja]

Second, I never tell anyone they are not right with God.

I suspected as much.

 

[flaja]

... Now eternity with God is my destination, the Bible is my map, Jesus is the Way, and the Holy Spirit is my guide and instructor. What more could I need? I think I know a bit about God and His plans, but I'm even more certain that what I don't know dwarfs what I do. But why would that stop God from making me right with Him? After all, it is He who makes me right.

How do you know all of this? What tells you that you are guided by God and not Satan? What tells you beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are headed for Heaven and not Hell?
If you don’t know beyond a shadow of a doubt what makes a person right with God, how can you know that you are right with God?
How do you know that you are following Jesus Christ and not one of the false Christs that Jesus warns us about?

John 10:24-27 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.

There is no doubt in the Kingdon of God.